SANJAY KUMAR vs DEFENCE

:: 1 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)

Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 1435/2022
Reserved on:- 23.02.2026
Pronounced on: - 16.10.2026

HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)


Sanjay Kumar NO: SD-505190 Age 45 years S/O Sh. Ram Lal R/o
Village Dhanore- Jarallan P/S, Tehsil & District Rajouri (J&K) -
185131.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: - Mr. Z A Qazi)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary of Defence Ministry of
Defence, 101 –A South Block, New Delhi-110011.
2. The Administrative Commandant, Station Headquarters, Sunderbani
Pin-901164 C/O 56 APO.
3. The Controller General of Defence Accounts Ulan Batar Road,
Palam, Delhi Cantt-110010.
…Respondents.
(By Advocate: - Mr. Raghu Mehta, Sr. CGSC)



HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 2 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section
19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following
reliefs: -
a) “To set-aside & quash order No: 1720/Stn HQ /30 dated 30-
05- 2022 issued by respondent no 02 in the interest of justice.
b) To direct the respondents particularly the respondent no 01 &
03 to allow the applicant to join his duties as conservancy Safai
Wala at Station Headquarters Sunderbani besides this, paid all
the monetary & consequential benefits for the period of illness
& thereafter, till the applicant will be allowed to join his duties
which has been rejected by respondent no 02 illegally,
unauthorizedly & unlawfully.
c) any other order which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit &
proper may also be passed in favour of applicant & against the
respondents.”
2. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section
19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging order No.
1720/Stn HQ/30 dated 30.05.2022, whereby his request to resume
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 3 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

duties as Conservancy Safaiwala at Station Headquarters, Sunderbani,
was rejected. The applicant has also sought a direction to the
respondents to allow him to rejoin his duties and release salary and
other consequential benefits for the period of his absence.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant was
appointed as Conservancy Safaiwala at Station Headquarters,
Akhnoor, vide appointment order dated 21.03.2001. He joined his
duties on 26.03.2001 and was subsequently deployed at Station
Headquarters, Sunderbani, on 09.04.2001.
4. According to the applicant, he performed his duties sincerely until
October 2011, when he developed a serious mental illness known as
schizophrenia. He submits that because of his illness, he was unable to
attend his duties or inform his superior officers about his condition.
He further submits that after undergoing treatment and recovering
from his illness, he approached the respondents with medical
documents and requested permission to resume his duties. However,
despite repeated requests and representations, he was not allowed to
join.
5. The applicant further submits that the respondents issued a show-
cause notice dated 16.04.2019, to which he submitted his reply dated
01.05.2019 along with the relevant medical documents. He also
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 4 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

approached the authorities through various representations, but no
favourable decision was taken.
6. Thereafter, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No.
296/2022, which was disposed of on 01.04.2022 with a direction to
the respondents to treat the Original Application as a representation
and decide the same within the prescribed period. In compliance with
the said direction, the respondents passed the impugned order dated
30.05.2022, rejecting the applicant's request. Aggrieved by this
decision, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.
7. The respondents have opposed the Original Application by filing their
reply. Their main stand is that the applicant was a habitual absentee
who repeatedly remained away from duty without obtaining
permission or submitting leave applications. According to the official
records, the applicant remained absent for a total of 1507 days
between 2003 and 30.09.2011. The respondents submit that this
period of absence was much before the illness claimed by the
applicant to have started in October 2011.
8. The respondents further submit that the applicant again remained
absent from duty with effect from 02.10.2011 without obtaining leave
or informing the department about the reasons for his absence. They
state that several show-cause notices were issued to him between 2007
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 5 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

and 2019, but he failed to maintain regular attendance or comply with
the required procedure.
9. It is further stated that the applicant submitted medical documents
relating to schizophrenia in response to the show-cause notice dated
16.04.2019. The respondents forwarded the medical documents to the
concerned medical authorities for verification. According to them, the
medical documents were produced after a considerable delay of about
eight years and did not satisfactorily establish that the applicant was
unable to attend duty throughout the period of absence. The
respondents also state that the matter concerning disciplinary action
was referred to the higher authorities.
10. The respondents maintain that the applicant cannot claim salary for
the period during which he did not perform any duty. They submit
that the competent authority examined his request in light of the
service record and applicable rules and rejected it by the impugned
order dated 30.05.2022. Accordingly, they have prayed for dismissal
of the Original Application.
11. The applicant has filed a rejoinder denying the allegations made by
the respondents. He maintains that he had not remained absent for
1507 days between 2003 and September 2011 and that he had been
paid salary during the relevant period. He further reiterates that his
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 6 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

absence after October 2011 was due to a serious medical condition
beyond his control. According to him, the respondents failed to
appreciate his medical circumstances and wrongly rejected his request
to resume duties.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined
the pleadings and material available on record.
13. The main question before this Tribunal is whether the respondents
acted illegally or arbitrarily in rejecting the applicant’s request to
resume duties and claim monetary benefits after remaining absent
from service for a prolonged period.
14. It is not disputed that the applicant was appointed in March 2001 and
was posted at Station Headquarters, Sunderbani. The dispute concerns
his prolonged absence from duty and the reasons offered by him for
such absence.
15. The respondents have specifically stated that the applicant remained
absent for a total period of 1507 days between 2003 and 30.09.2011.
This is a substantial period of absence spread over several years. The
applicant has denied this allegation and has stated that he was
performing his duties during the said period. However, the applicant
has not placed sufficient reliable material on record to establish that
the entire period of absence recorded by the department was incorrect.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 7 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

16. The applicant has also argued that he received salary during the
relevant period and, therefore, the allegation of absence cannot be
accepted. We are unable to agree with this submission. Mere payment
of salary, by itself, does not establish that an employee actually
attended duty on all the dates in question. Attendance and leave
records are relevant for determining whether an employee was present
or absent from duty. The applicant has not sufficiently displaced the
respondents' specific stand regarding his repeated absence.
17. Another important aspect is that the applicant himself states that he
developed schizophrenia in October 2011. Even if his explanation
regarding illness from October 2011 is accepted, it does not explain
the earlier period of absence of 1507 days between 2003 and
September 2011. The respondents’ allegation of repeated absence
during those years, therefore, cannot be answered merely by referring
to an illness stated to have begun subsequently.
18. We are conscious of the fact that schizophrenia is a serious mental
health condition and that a person suffering from such an illness may
face genuine difficulties in managing everyday responsibilities,
including employment. Such circumstances deserve sympathy,
understanding and appropriate treatment by the employer. An
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 8 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

employee suffering from a medical condition should not be treated
harshly merely because of the illness.
19. At the same time, the Tribunal must decide the matter on the basis of
the service record, applicable rules and evidence placed before it.
Sympathy alone cannot justify a direction for payment of salary for
several years of absence or an unconditional direction to resume
duties without examining the service position.
20. In the present case, the applicant has not satisfactorily explained the
repeated absence recorded by the respondents before October 2011.
With regard to the subsequent period, although medical documents
have been relied upon, the respondents have questioned whether those
documents sufficiently establish the applicant’s inability to attend
duty throughout the prolonged period. The production of medical
documents after several years, without satisfactory evidence covering
the entire period of absence, does not automatically entitle an
employee to have the whole period treated as duty.
21. It is a basic requirement of government service that an employee must
attend duty regularly and, when unable to do so, inform the competent
authority and obtain leave in accordance with the applicable rules.
Where illness genuinely prevents an employee from complying with
these requirements, the circumstances must be examined fairly.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 9 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

However, an employee cannot claim an unrestricted right to remain
absent for years and thereafter demand salary and other benefits for
the entire period without establishing entitlement under the rules.
22. In the present case, the respondents have placed reliance on the
applicant’s past attendance record, which shows repeated absence
over a number of years. The applicant has not been able to
satisfactorily explain the earlier period of absence. His subsequent
illness, though deserving of sympathy, cannot by itself justify the
irregular attendance recorded before October 2011. The prolonged
absence, taken together with his earlier service record, supports the
respondents’ stand that the applicant was a habitual absentee.
23. We also find that the respondents had issued show-cause notices to
the applicant regarding his absence. The applicant admittedly received
the notice dated 16.04.2019 and submitted his reply. Thus, it cannot
be said that the department never brought the issue of unauthorized
absence to his notice. The respondents have also stated that the matter
was referred to the higher authorities for disciplinary action. This
indicates that the department had taken steps to address the applicant’s
continued absence.
24. The applicant has contended that the respondents did not issue any
formal order of termination or removal from service and, therefore, he
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 10 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

continues to be a government employee. We find that this contention,
even if accepted, does not automatically entitle him to salary for the
period during which he remained absent or to unconditional
permission to resume duties. The question of his service status and the
regularization of absence must be governed by the applicable service
rules and any lawful proceedings undertaken by the competent
authority. The impugned order rejecting his representation cannot, by
itself, be treated as an order of removal from service.
25. We have also examined the applicant’s grievance regarding the
declaration of the period of absence as non-duty. The respondents
have relied upon Fundamental Rule 54-B while dealing with the
monetary claim. However, the applicability of any particular provision
must be determined according to its scope and the applicant’s actual
service status. The period of absence cannot automatically be treated
as duty merely because the applicant subsequently submitted medical
documents. Equally, any formal decision regarding leave, pay or
service status must be taken under the relevant rules. The applicant
has not established a legal right to receive full salary and
consequential benefits for the entire disputed period.
26. The applicant has further alleged that the impugned order dated
30.05.2022 was passed mechanically and without proper application
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 11 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

of mind. We do not find sufficient grounds to accept this contention.
The respondents have referred to the applicant’s previous attendance
record, the prolonged absence, the medical documents submitted by
him and the relevant service requirements. The applicant’s request
was rejected principally on the ground that he had remained absent for
a long period without proper authorization. Merely because the
decision is not in favour of the applicant, it cannot be held to be
arbitrary or illegal.
27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the power of
judicial review in disciplinary matters is concerned primarily with the
legality of the decision-making process and not with reappreciation of
the evidence as an appellate authority. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of
India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained that
the Court or Tribunal cannot ordinarily substitute its own findings or
punishment for those of the competent disciplinary authority.
Similarly, in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 ,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the limited scope of
interference with findings recorded in departmental proceedings.
28. It is also important to note that the earlier direction of this Tribunal in
O.A. No. 296/2022 was to examine and decide the applicant’s
representation. Such a direction did not confer an automatic right
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 12 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

upon the applicant to rejoin duties or receive monetary benefits. The
respondents were required to examine his request in accordance with
the rules and communicate their decision. The impugned order dated
30.05.2022 was passed pursuant to that direction.
29. We are mindful that loss of employment or income can cause serious
hardship to an employee and his family, particularly where the
employee has suffered from a prolonged illness. However, the
responsibility of maintaining discipline and regular attendance in
government service cannot be overlooked. Every employee has a duty
to attend work regularly, and the employer is entitled to take lawful
action when an employee repeatedly remains absent without
permission.
30. The present case is not one of a short period of absence or an isolated
instance of failure to obtain leave. The respondents have relied upon a
record of repeated absence extending over several years. The
applicant has not furnished a satisfactory explanation for the entire
period. In such circumstances, this Tribunal cannot direct the
respondents to ignore the attendance record and grant the relief sought
merely on sympathetic grounds.
31. At the same time, we clarify that our observations regarding the
applicant’s absence are confined to deciding the relief claimed in the
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 13 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

present Original Application. If disciplinary proceedings are pending,
the competent authority shall deal with them independently, in
accordance with law, after giving the applicant the opportunity
required under the applicable rules. Nothing stated in this order shall
be treated as a final finding of misconduct in such proceedings.
32. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of
the view that the applicant has failed to establish sufficient grounds
for interference with the decision of the respondents rejecting his
request for unconditional resumption of duties and payment of
monetary benefits for the prolonged period of absence. No case is
made out for granting the reliefs prayed for in the present Original
Application.
33. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we find no merit in the
present Original Application. Accordingly, O.A. No. 1435/2022 is
dismissed. The prayer for quashing order No. 1720/Stn HQ/30 dated
30.05.2022 and for directing the respondents to allow the applicant to
resume duties with salary and consequential benefits is declined.
34. It is, however, clarified that dismissal of the present Original
Application shall not prevent the competent authority from dealing
with any pending disciplinary proceedings, determining the applicant's
service status or examining any admissible statutory dues strictly in
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 14 :: O.A. No. 1435/2022

accordance with the applicable rules. Any such decision shall be taken
independently and shall not be influenced by observations beyond the
issues decided in this order.
35. There shall be no order as to costs.
36. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit /

HARSHIT Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV